The Barack Obama School Children Address
Twitter
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Stumble
Reddit
Lefties say Conservatives are making it sound like Nazi indoctrination and Righties are saying it is like Nazi indoctrination. In case you haven’t heard, Obama is going to talk to K-6th graders. Neither side is completely right or completely wrong but what this little speech does show is that the belief in the omnipotent “talking head” era has passed.
It used to be you read your morning (or afternoon) newspaper, read Life Magazine once a week, and watched a network news program. If you were very interested you could watch a program on PBS like Crossfire to maybe get some more knowledge or, if you were a true “rebel” you read a free newspaper. And that was how people learned how to think about topics. The wise editor someplace would choose what you would learn. And so it was for many, many years.
After the 60s we all learned about “deconstructionism” whereby nothing really had a set meaning. Thus the Mona Lisa was not universally a great work and somebody who splashed some paint on the canvas could be mentioned in the same breath as a great, well known painter. People came up with all sorts of “new meanings” for poetry and prose, and up became down and in became out and college students everywhere were able to cram as much BS into their papers as they could.
The talking head era was drawing to a close. Its death knell happened when people could go onto a website and see a 50 year, well known writer’s work displayed next to somebody you’d never heard of. Both, because they appeared next to one another, seemed to have equal authority. It took the individual reader to determine if what was being presented to them was valid or not.
It is ironic, in this post-1984 1984 world (written in 1948 but ahead of its time) that Liberals, who often put down Conservatives for trying to enforce “universal” values (also called “family values”) would be shocked that the image of a U.S. President on a television monitor telling young children what he thinks is important in life would be objectionable. After all, when the President of the United States says something, even if it sounds odd, he or she does speak with the authority of the office and most kids in that age group still believe in Santa Claus.
Democrats never believed George W. Bush when he talked about his core beliefs yet they think it is odd many Americans don’t want Barack Obama speaking about what he thinks are important in life. The ironies are numerous.
Obama may have had good intentions (his “community organizer” history is coming out) but it just looks so nefarious to many who are part of a society that rejects the talking head.
Even if Obama plays it “safe” and says things like it’s good to help your neighbors, you should look both ways before crossing the street, and when you grow up pay your taxes, people will still be upset.
Had places been reversed and George W. Bush was the man on the television in schools across the nation, we’d be hearing the same things from Democrats that we hear now from Republicans.
France’s Charles de Gaulle once said:
“How can anyone govern a nation that has two hundred and forty-six different kinds of cheese?”
And so it has become in America, minus the cheese.
Did you like this article? If so, get new articles every day for free via RSS or Email
Related posts:
12:11
Did they get rid of the “Barack Obama is Great” assignments they wanted all the kids to do?
19:22
I haven’t heard of that but it sadly wouldn’t suprise me.
13:54
But Harrison, it’s the One, the Messiah…it’s “different” with Barack Obama. He has more EMPATHY because he’s a liberal democrat and he was a community organizer…kinda like, you know, Van Jones.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of Jones: “sparkling intelligence, powerful vision and deep empathy.” Heh, heh. Who could argue against “empathy.”
vulcanhammer´s last blog ..Pictures of Normandy. Then and now.
14:10
Empathy and Irony living together in perfect harmony…
16:39
Yes, Virginia, there are some jackasses out there who believe that Obama is trying to convert their kids into a new generation of Pravda subscribers. My message to them? Just relax and take a nice, deep breath. As someone recently remarked, this in not a policy speech, it’s a pep talk. For all his minor flaws, this president really believes in education. His is the classic American success story in which the education he received plays a crucial role in the plot line. He wants to inspire the littlest of us to climb the highest mountains of achievement. What the hell is wrong with that? What’s the matter with thesse people?
You would think the way some of you have been acting that the president is some kind of pervert stalking the neighborhood school bus stop, ready to expose himself. He means your children no harm. He’s not trying to turn the little darlin’s into Socialists – or even Democrats for that matter. Hell, for all we know he might even inspire one of them to greatness! It’s a fairly safe bet that one day more than one of those kids will grow up to be the president of the United Sates of America! Let them be inspired.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
19:25
I don’t think education got Obama to where he is today. People like Ayers and Wright probably score higher on that list. To inspire is a great thing but to conspire is not. I’m concerned we are having too much of the latter and too little of the former.
18:10
John,
The White House changed the assignment that was supposed to go along with Obama’s speech. Students were originally supposed to write something on what they could do to help President Obama, but that part has now been scrubbed. I think this is a link to the original assignment http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582301/President-Obama%E2%80%99s-Address-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009
Forgotten Liberty´s last blog ..Capitalism is Evil, Michael Moore Says So.
19:20
Okay that is evil. I guess when parents learned the letters to Obama started with: “Dear Leader” it was pulled.
I can just see teachers “leading” the discussion to the conclusions they want their students to reach.
Excellent link thank you!
18:24
The brats better stay in school. Without a mediocre public education how are they going to command a big enough income to pay of the absolutely ridiculous debt that Barack Obama is providing for our kids – even though he means them no harm.
By the way, Tom, greatness isn’t allowed in public schools anymore, so there would appear to be a conflict of interest with your statement. It would be more accurate to say, “Hell, maybe he’ll convince enough of them that it is o.k. to settle for mediocrity.”
***He wants to inspire the littlest of us to climb the highest mountains of achievement. What the hell is wrong with that? What’s the matter with thesse people?
Unfortunately, America’s public schools aren’t an environment where those who are inspired can climb mountains of achievement. Such an environment would make the kids who don’t have this inspiration look like failures, and this might make them feel bad. Who is Obama to go and encourage some kids to try and be better than others? Such encouragement certainly wouldn’t be in line with the policies that others in his party and his supporters in the NEA would advocate.
burro´s last blog ..I fell for it
06:28
I really don’t see a problem in this kind of speech…
Hans´s last blog ..Did you know that ? (8)
10:32
I did not hear conservatives complaining when Reagan addressed schoolchildren. And Reagan’s message was much more political than Obama’s. Reagan bragged to schoolchildren about cutting taxes. Obama is telling kids to study hard and stay in school. Unless you think that it is better to tell kids that it is not important to study hard and stay in school, I cannot fathom what is objectionable about a message like that.
Joe Markowitz´s last blog ..We don’t need no education!
11:39
I think the difference between Reagan and Obama is that Reagan addressed some school children sitting in the White House (most of which were probably staff member’s children) vs. Obama’s address to the nations’ K-6. Big difference.
And what about this posted on Drudge today:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html
02:48
Burro: the Bush administration caused the enormous debth!
Iraq, ca 2 trillion and counting…
Hans´s last blog ..Day Opening – September 9
21:28
2 trillion is a drop in the bucket for Obama. At least the War in Iraq actually created some jobs for soldiers and private contractors, and that wasn’t even the purpose of the War. Obama spends about a trillion dollars to create some jobs and the unemployment rate seems to just hold steady.
The deficits that Bush ran to pay for the War in Irag were still low by historical standards as a percentage of GDP, and at least that money went into the pockets of good, honest, hardworking, defense contractors, oil companies, Halliburton, and the soldiers. I’d rather see govt. money go to Halliburton than GM and the UAW.
Hans: Barack Obama has 2 solutions for any problem 1. blame Bush. 2. give a speech. Both solutions are getting pretty old already.
burro´s last blog ..I fell for it
01:41
At least the War in Iraq actually created some jobs for soldiers and private contractors, and that wasn’t even the purpose of the War.
—————————————————————————-
Are you insane or do you want to show off your ignorance Burro?
What was the purpose of the war, the goals? Are they reached.
Obama have maybe 2 solutions, you have one solution: blame it on Obama – probably he started the war in Iraq as well..))
Here some plain facts about Iraq:
-1,000,000 widowed women according to a statistic published by the
Iraqi woman’s ministry in 2008
-4,000,000 orphan child (estimated by the ministry of planning if the average of the Iraqi family is 4-6 children)
-2,500,000 killed (according to the statistics of the Iraqi ministry of health and the forensic medicine (morgues) till December 2008)
-800,000 missing (according to the ministry of anterior till December 2008)
-320,000 prisoners inside the USA and government jails (the USA announced the presence of 120,000 prisoners inside their jails)
-4,500,000 refugees outside Iraq (according to the statistics of people who requested the new passport G)
-2,500,000 displaced inside Iraq (according to the Iraqi ministry of immigration and refugees)
-76,000 cases of HIV (according to the Iraqi ministry of health) (it was 114 cases before the war)
-40% of the Iraqi people are under the line of poverty (according to the statistics of the Iraqi human rights’ ministry)
-126 foreign security companies (registered at the Iraqi ministry of anterior)
-43 armed militias (registered at the Iraqi ministry of anterior and ministry of defense)
Well, it’s really frightening. Just look well at the numbers of orphans, widowed, killed and missing and you would certainly know why I said where are going to have a social crisis.
Are you still proud about the USA soldiers there, doing their jobs?
Shame on you.
If Sji’ets and Soenniets wants to kill each other, thats their problem. Its none of your business. But the USA invasion made everything 100x worse.
Again, what was the goal of the war? you see the results.
Hans´s last blog ..Le Temps de Vivre
12:26
The goal of the war from a broad geo-political perspective was to destabilize the region and prevent a pan-islamic regional power from forming in the Middle East. When you are a global superpower, whose military is larger than all the other militaries on the planet combined you get the luxury of getting to make things your business regardless of what European expats think of it all.
Are your statistics supposed to surprise me? This was a war after all. These numbers look pretty small when you stack them against any major European wars. I am more proud of the soldiers in Iraq than I am of the ones that have been babysitting Europeans for the last 60 years.
Be careful not to confuse ignorance for sarcasm.
Burro´s last blog ..I fell for it
05:44
B.
In two sentences you made 3 mistakes:
1) Iraq was not an Islamic country but a strict ruled country secular country. The minister of Foreign Affairs was a Christian and the 500.000 Christians there are almost disappeared since the war. How come?
2) Iraq kept Iran in balance. See what happens at the moment. Is Israel happy with a destabilized area. I don’t think so. Destabilized means more wars. Even my nephew of 16 understands that.
3) USA the only superpower? Militairy, maybe yes. But which country has the largets militairy? Not the USA. Even the EU countries combined has a larger army! Here some facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops
USA is not the only economic and political superpower anymore…The term in its current political meaning was coined by Dutch-American geostrategist Nicholas Spykman in a series of lectures in 1943 about the potential shape of a new post-war world order. But we are living in the 21th century.
Here some info although not updated:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower
Political…the USA became more and more isolated. And that was what the Nat. Sec. Adv. to Obama means when trying to explain that the world became less hostile towards the USA.
I really want to advize you to watch the new government in Japan is doing – for 60 years USA closest economic ally – they shift towards European model.
With sarcasm you can not cover your ignorance…
Hans´s last blog ..Day Opening – September 11
10:35
Last time I checked, most Iraqis practice Islam. You are correct that their country is not an Islamist theocracy, but this doesn’t mean that much of its government policy is not informed by Islam nor that the majority of its citizens sympathize with Islam, the religion.
Israel is not happy with a destabilized Middle East. However, ultimately Israel’s interests are not the interests of the U.S. At times these interests coincide, but from a broad geopolitical perspective a destabilized middle east is in the best interests of the U.S. This does mean more wars. I don’t know what evidence you have that war has ever stopped being a condition of humanity, nor do I know what evidence you have that war will ever cease to be a condition of humanity. In the Middle East you have populations who are inherently violent and war-prone that for millennia have tended to suck in other populations who are also inherently violent and war-prone to fight. Europeans and Americans are two populations who fall into the latter category.
I can be more clear about the military. The U.S. has a larger Navy than the navies of all other countries combined. It doesn’t matter how many tanks or foot soldiers your country has, if you can’t project this power abroad. The U.S. Doesn’t have to worry about N. Korea shuttling its 4.5 million soldiers across the pacific in its three frigates. However, countries like Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, and even the Netherlands have little recourse to stop the U.S. from harboring a naval flotilla off their coast and launching an invasion if the U.S. decides that doing so is in its best interest.
During the last half of the 20th century the size of a country’s military by a count of troops became largely irrelevant (especially when cited in wikipedia) compared to the ability of a country to project power through sophisticated weapons technology and naval force.
I have been watching Japan, and the atmospherics there have changed, but unless they start to militarize and expand their navy to be able to control Pacific sea lanes, there is little leverage they have over the U.S.
burro´s last blog ..I fell for it